Let see what findings the cited studies in the paper has to say:
"teachers give boys greater opportunity to expand ideas and be animated than they do girls and that they reinforce boys more for general responses than they do for girls." (1994)
"teachers who are made aware of their gender-biased teaching behaviors and then provided with strategies and resources to combat bias are better able to promote gender equity in their classrooms." (2000)
All good and all, but nothing about single-sex education. Nothing about gender inequality in programming. Their conclusions are also very low hanging fruits. Is it non-obvious that educating teachers about discriminating behavior will have an effect in how they teach? It is good that they tested it, but it was not a very controversial proposition. Single-sex education is.
I think that kind of research is interesting, but feminists are prone to jumping to conclusions. All sorts of things could happen in the classroom. For example, maybe boys raise their finger more often to ask questions (no idea, just an example). That could be a reason for "teachers giving them more time and space". No theory of discrimination necessary. Or maybe boys are dumber and need more help than girls - another possible way to explain the measurements without calling for discrimination.
But "feminist scientists" (deliberate ") WANT to see discrimination. As soon as they see any data that can be interpreted to support the presence of discrimination, the case is closed and no further inquiry is being made.
For example, in the wage gap discussion, I have never seen anybody ask an employer why they pay women less. Who knows, there might be some surprising answers.
>But "feminist scientists" (deliberate ") WANT to see discrimination. As soon as they see any data that can be interpreted to support the presence of discrimination, the case is closed and no further inquiry is being made.
That's stupid.
> I have never seen anybody ask an employer why they pay women less.
There has actually been research into this too. Women don't negotiate as much as men. Women don't ask for promotions and raises as much as men. Women aren't recognized as much for their contributions as much as men. Women's achievements, capabilities and potential are seen as much less than men by society. This starts as young as babies even by their own mothers. Successful and competent women are perceived as unlikeable thus less likely to get a raise or rise in the career ladder. Women tend to have less confidence in their ability and thus might contribute to them not asking for a raise.
This is mostly due to subconscious cultural influences and socialization of women rather than outright discrimination.
Employers are also worried about a women taking maternity leave and being distracted by kids. They aren't worried about men being distracted by children.
In a study I can't find now people were given a story about a successful person, some people were given it with a female name and some where given it with a male name. Then they were asked to give adjectives to describe the person. The male name got positive adjectives such as "hard worker" "achiever" and the female name got negative ones like "pushy."
"This is mostly due to subconscious cultural influences and socialization of women rather than outright discrimination."
And again your bias shows. What if there are natural reasons? Your assumption seems to be that women and men should act exactly equal, given "equality". What if that assumption is wrong? I already gave one example - women invest a lot of energy into child birth, so it seems natural that they have a higher preference, or rather privilege, to spend time with their children.
I can not read all of the studies you linked to. A lot of them are flawed anyway (I have read many of the like already). But in general I find it interesting. But when you find such a thing, like women asking for promotions less, why not learn from it and ask for a promotion?
I am not opposed to women trying to learn how to get ahead. Everybody should do that. I am opposed to unfairly blaming other people.
"Women's achievements, capabilities and potential are seen as much less than men by society."
This one for example is ridiculous. Can you point to the study that shows that? I can think of many famous women.
There is this meme going around of the female scientists who are supposedly cheated out of their fame ( https://plus.google.com/115858612877723984178/posts/Hphw8ErS... ). I looked them up on Wikipedia and the feminist story wasn't true at all. One of those women even had a chemical element named after herself (Lise Meitner).
The article you link to about boys in the classroom seems to confirm what I guessed, that boys demand more attention. There is not enough information in that article to form a real conclusion, though.
> What if there are natural reasons? Your assumption seems to be that women and men should act exactly equal, given "equality". What if that assumption is wrong? I already gave one example - women invest a lot of energy into child birth, so it seems natural that they have a higher preference, or rather privilege, to spend time with their children.
We've seen biotruth-y arguments over and over again on this subject, you are going to have to provide something that offers at some least some evidence that such a thing could account for observed socialization patterns with regards to gender.
> I can not read all of the studies you linked to. A lot of them are flawed anyway (I have read many of the like already). But in general I find it interesting. But when you find such a thing, like women asking for promotions less, why not learn from it and ask for a promotion?
You out of hand have dismissed each article posted by the parent and have provided nothing of your own to talk about the flaw you perceive in those items. This isn't how research and argument work.
> This one for example is ridiculous. Can you point to the study that shows that? I can think of many famous women.
There is a plethora of evidence about this in a variety of contexts: media representation, women participation in the work force, rates of violent crime experienced by women, and so on. Simple Google searches will give you the most basic of starting points on all of these contexts.
> There is this meme going around of the female scientists who are supposedly cheated out of their fame ( https://plus.google.com/115858612877723984178/posts/Hphw8ErS.... ). I looked them up on Wikipedia and the feminist story wasn't true at all. One of those women even had a chemical element named after herself (Lise Meitner).
That post is quite accurate. While today some of those things have been corrected after the fact (Lise Meitner is now credited with a Nobel Peace Prize, but did not get awarded at the same time as others), those stories are true.
> The article you link to about boys in the classroom seems to confirm what I guessed, that boys demand more attention. There is not enough information in that article to form a real conclusion, though.
Classroom gender dynamics is well studied, there are many studies to look at and several books published on the subject. Like all research one article is not going to give you conclusive proof of how things are exactly.
Discussion is not dumping a list of articles on another person. If you point out ones that specifically refute my points, I am happy to read them. I don't have time to read 20 articles now. I started with some but the quality of the linked articles was not all that great.
"That post is quite accurate. While today some of those things have been corrected after the fact (Lise Meitner is now credited with a Nobel Peace Prize, but did not get awarded at the same time as others), those stories are true."
I ask you to read the Wikipedia articles about all those women. It's not at all true that they were forgotten or cheated out of recognition for their work. Another one of them became the first female professor at Harvard, for example.
"there are many studies to look at and several books published on the subject."
Point me to a good one, then. The one that was linked here was merely a summary. I don't even know how many classrooms were scrutinized.
>the quality of the linked articles was not all that great
Why?
>You out of hand have dismissed each article posted by the parent and have provided nothing of your own to talk about the flaw you perceive in those item
Exactly.
>If you point out ones that specifically refute my points, I am happy to read them.
I did. That's what I posted. I spent time and effort compiling them. I first gave a summary of all the research and then I posted it.
I looked at the first two. The first was just a small article about employers trying to discern if a woman wants to have children or not. Why did you even link to that?
I commented on the second one - it certainly seems interesting, but there was bias apparent already in the second paragraph.
How can you expect me to read 15 articles you dump on me? At least give me a reason why they are relevant, or pick two or three?
Unfortunately number of quotes doesn't make them more true. I would be interested in articles that show the meat. For example with the classrooms, show me the article that says how the study was conducted. How many classrooms did they watch? Did they try different schools? Different countries? Different cultures?
>But when you find such a thing, like women asking for promotions less, why not learn from it and ask for a promotion?
Women are socialized to not ask for what they want from a young age. Many do not realize they can even ask for the things they want. Society tends to view women and men differently when they ask.
> The messages girls receive — from parents and teachers, from books they read, from movies and television shows they watch, and from behavior of the adults around them — can be so powerful that as women they may not even understand that their reluctance to ask for what they want is a learned behavior, and one that can be unlearned.
>More recent research that I conducted with two colleagues, Hannah Bowles and Lei Lai, points to another reason that women don’t ask: They face a much chillier reaction — from men and from women — when they do negotiate for what they want.
>Behavior that can lead a man to be seen as ambitious or a go-getter can brand a woman as too pushy and aggressive. She may be called rude names, receive negative evaluations based solely on her personal style instead of her work and find herself closed out of networks or opportunities from which she might benefit. My boss was pleased that I asked him for what I wanted. A lot of women aren’t so lucky.
This one clearly states that infants induce different attitudes in their parents - for example baby boys being more irritable, making their parents spend less time with them. I don't think it warrants the conclusion that everything is just socialization.
I have no opinion on brain differences - it seems unlikely to me, as I think the brain is a rather universal machine that can adapt to a lot of situations (such as being stuck in a male or female body). But what about hormones? Afaik hormones induce behavior changes, and boys have more testosterone than girls?
I also re-read your link about the classroom. It also clearly seems to indicate that boys receive more attention because they demand it. The teachers explanation is "Boys have trouble reading, writing, doing math. They can't even sit still. They need me more." - what if that is actually correct? Are the smart girls really left behind? After all girls tend to have better grades than boys.
As I said I find the research interesting and valuable, but crying "sexism" and "girls are being shortchanged" (as they do in their article) seems biased and unnecessary.
If you can learn from such research how to better educate boys and girls, I am all for it.
If you are interested in continuing the conversation by email let me know, I think this HN thread is too deeply nested already...
This unfortunately doesn't give any details, it's basically just "my research has shown that xyz is true" - an appeal to authority.
Maybe there is something to it. But the author has a girl as a kid. I'm a man. You may be surprised to hear that the same things she claims are socialization for girls have also been taught to me. Namely that I should be humble and recognition will come to me and all those things. Those are actually just basic "good behavior" for everyone. Therefore I am sorry, but I remain skeptic.
"Studies show that women are less likely to negotiate deals than men for 2 reasons:
Women are socialized to place the needs of others first and their own second
Women believe that they will be recognized and rewarded for their hard work and dedication
"
Uh yeah as I said - that is basically what everybody is being taught, not just women. Likewise the advice they give is good for everybody.
There are scores of books full of career advice, for men and women. It's not as if men don't need it because they are naturals at it.
I knew that one before and it is actually to date one of the few "feminist" papers that I accept as valid. However, I don't think the conclusion of sexism is necessarily correct. It seems clear from that research that men and women alike consider a female applicant less valuable. But what if the concern about the applicant dropping out to become a mother is a major factor of that. Would that really be sexism? To me it seems like a rational and valid reason. It is of course unfortunate for women, but what would be a good solution to counteract it?
"We can't know that because society treats baby girls different from baby boys at birth."
From that alone it doesn't follow that boys and girls could be raised with arbitrary socialization rules. Those rules probably evolved.
Some differences in preferences, or in incentives, are obviously dictated by biology. You've probably heard it before: women need to invest 9 months and the risk of death into a pregnancy. Men just need to invest 10 seconds.
I'll try to read more of the papers then I might write more - if HN lets me. Usually they kill my account around the 30 karma points region. So if I don't reply any further, it's because HN killed my account. In that case: it was nice talking to you!
Ok I grudgingly started to read some of your links to procrastinate.
The first one is rather useless.
The second again shows the bias I am talking about. It starts with the example of more men than women being given teaching assignments. It turns out less women asked for them - the dean tries to give one to everyone who asks.
Then the bias: they conclude that "women don't ask for the things they want". But that is a bias - it is also possible they simply didn't want those things, and therefore didn't ask.
Likewise with higher salary, perhaps women simply care less.
Note I have nothing against them asking for higher salary.
No it isn't. It answers the questions you asked about why teachers favor boys in the classroom.
>But that is a bias - it is also possible they simply didn't want those things, and therefore didn't ask.
>Likewise with higher salary, perhaps women simply care less.
Read the damn book. The authors go on and give a class about negotiation in the school and starting salaries for women increased dramatically. If they didn't want higher salaries, that wouldn't have happened. They also released a followup to the book called "Ask for It" which taught asking and negotiation skills to women because women asked "ok, I don't ask for what I want, how can I learn how to ask for what I want?" If nobody cared then why would they demand a followup?
Sorry, I meant the first one from the long list - the second one you linked to. The one about the classrooms at least gives a good summary, but it doesn't say anything about the "why". And I get the impression the reality might have looked very different from what you imagine if you read the summary. For example they mention some stars might get all the attention - in that case most boys and girls would be neglected, except for some stars. That would be different from "girls are neglected vs boys".
I find that research interesting, as I said I just think people are jumping to conclusions from their observations.
"Read the damn book. "
What book - you mean the third link? I'll try, unfortunately it is not loading for me atm. Will try again tomorrow.
> think that kind of research is interesting, but feminists are prone to jumping to conclusions.
I'm afraid researchers in general are far to prone to jumping to conclusions.
> As soon as they see any data that can be interpreted to support the presence of discrimination, the case is closed and no further inquiry is being made.
That's not my experience with such research. On the contrary, there are usually a progression: first look at the statistical data to see if there appear to be differences, and if there are, then try and find out more about those differences, why they are there and if they can and/or should be mitigated.
A lot of the work in classrooms, for instance, first started with documenting classroom settings on video, looking at the amount of time spent with various students and how often one or another group was picked to answer questions etc. This work revealed rather stark differences, much to the surprise of teachers who subjectively thought themselves to not do any sort of differentiation.
Now, explaining those differences is indeed complex. And while I don't think there is any support for the idea that boys are dumber than girls (or vice versa) -- there are indeed studies suggesting that young boys have a harder time learning and concentrating in a quiet "at-the-desk" classroom setting. This then has implications for how one should organize class; in general you don't want noisy students to distract those that are more quiet/more mature -- nor might you want to segregate the classroom too much.
> For example, in the wage gap discussion, I have never seen anybody ask an employer why they pay women less. Who knows, there might be some surprising answers.
That amounts to asking employers why they are breaking the law, which makes it a little tricky. In general there are three important questions here: do women earn the same as men (no); are women paid the same amount for the same work as men (no, but the difference is smaller -- especially now than in the 60s); And: Why?
The answer to why is also a two-part answer: partly women do more of the work that is considered free (or very low wage when people are hired to do it): housework and staying at home with children. Additionally, due to women being overrepresented in careers with lower wages, in a typical family, it makes more economic sense for the woman to stay home with young (and/or sick) children -- which again means the woman might progress slower in her career.
To cut an already too long comment short, have a look at for example:
"That amounts to asking employers why they are breaking the law, which makes it a little tricky"
Maybe you haven't noticed, but you are already assuming that employers are guilty. That kind of thing is exactly what makes me speak out against feminist articles all the time, because there are so many unspoken assumptions.
What if they aren't and there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for them paying less to women? Are there even employers who pay their female employees less than the males? Perhaps it is rather a difference between companies? (Just examples). What if the women just work less hours than the men (which seems to be the case)?
I think the answer to the wage gap has more than just two parts.
Also I suspect most wage gap studies neglect to mention that women automatically get half of their husbands income.
Edit: to answer one of your arguments, women more likely to stay home because they have lower wages. What if they chose a profession with lower wages because they knew they'd be staying home anyway? Or maybe they chose a less paid, but more fun job, because they don't need to provide for the whole family?
You probably automatically assume it is a problem. But what if it is a privilege instead? What if instead of measuring "wage", we would measure "time spent with children and family"? See how you are being manipulated? Of course everybody may decide for themselves what they prefer (work or time with family), but it seems wrong to just assume those preferences for all of mankind.
I suspect a lot of feminists don't have children yet, so they don't even know what it means. To me, having witnessed my wife toiling in labor for hours, it seems ridiculous to send a woman right back to work after having given birth to her child. Of course she should have the privilege to spend time with her children - she sacrificed the most to have them in the first place. What makes me angry is if this privilege is then turned on it's head and the people who toil to make it possible (ie men earning the money to support the family) are then being blamed for it.
Again - everybody may choose their own preferences. I am just saying that the preferences we see today may not be completely arbitrary. Most people end up having children after all - nothing against the ones who don't want to have children, but they simply don't make a significant impact in the long run. They die, and then that's it.
> For example, in the wage gap discussion, I have never seen anybody ask an employer why they pay women less. Who knows, there might be some surprising answers.
I replied:
>> "That amounts to asking employers why they are breaking the law, which makes it a little tricky"
Because your question assumed some employers paid women less, and in eg:
the US, systematically paying women less for the same job that you pay
men more for, would be
illegal.
>> Maybe you haven't noticed, but you are already assuming that employers are guilty. That kind of thing is exactly what makes me speak out against feminist articles all the time, because there are so many unspoken assumptions.
I see were we might have mis-communicated here. If we assume at a given
employer, that women are paid less for the same type of jobs that men
do, to a statstically signficant degree -- you might argue that it just
so happens that women are paid less, that it has nothing to do with them
being women -- therefore the employer might not be discriminating.
Now, if you're right, you might get some answers with justifications
ranging from experience, to education etc. However if you're wrong, then
an employer would be incriminating themselves by answering. That's why
it's a tricky question to ask -- if you expect to get meaningful
responses.
Note that such research has still been done (see other comments in this
thread).
(replying to this comment since I can't tell which is the furthest down on the comment tree)
Wage differences are not as simple issue as potraited here. For example, if discrimination is the only factor, why is the discrimination only after the age of 40? Before that, wage difference is in many professions negligent. A study in Sweden noticed that by every 10 years from the age of 30, average wage differences between men and women increases by a factor of 2 (ie, 30 = 0-10%, 40 = 15-20%, 50 = ? - 40%).
Indeed, outright discrimination isn't the only factor, I think that's reflected in the other comments in this thread. My response above was to the lack of qualitative studies as to why employers might pay women less -- in cases that they do.
The example from Sweden you site might be an example of the "glass ceiling" at work -- lack of promotion and recognition for women compared to men (I can't tell by your example if the differences are in similar positions, of if lack of promotion might be an issue).
> My response above was to the lack of qualitative studies as to why employers might pay women less
I agree there 100%, which is what I said initially in this discussion way up in the beginning of this. the "years of feminist research" has so far only identified that there is a problem, and came up with many many theories around why. Its why I call feminist research poor at best, because we need qualitative studies to show which of the many theories are correct.
The Swedish study was basically just an other summery of census data. It gave theories why, but are still at that stage. I would also guess that promotion and recognition for women compared to men is an issue, which could be a result of "glass ceiling". It could also be because men compete with other men to achieve recognition (which is not the same as accomplish the job task).
>What if the women just work less hours than the men (which seems to be the case)?
>women more likely to stay home because they have lower wages. What if they chose a profession with lower wages because they knew they'd be staying home anyway? Or maybe they chose a less paid, but more fun job, because they don't need to provide for the whole family?
If you ever even paid attention to such studies you are trying to debunk you would realize that many take this into consideration and see that there are still differences in pay even though factors like that are taken into consideration very carefully. Even though the wage gap does lessen when those are taken into consideration.
>I suspect a lot of feminists don't have children yet, so they don't even know what it means.
Of course that is absurd. My mother is a feminist.
Then I just Wikipediaed list of feminist and it was not at ALL hard to find a bunch with children.
>To me, having witnessed my wife toiling in labor for hours, it seems ridiculous to send a woman right back to work after having given birth to her child
Nobody said women need to return to work after giving birth. The whole point of feminism is everyone has a choice to do what they want. They have a choice to go back to work, or stay at home. Or the man or same sex partner can stay at home if they wish too, without any problems.
>Also I suspect most wage gap studies neglect to mention that women automatically get half of their husbands income.
Of course that isn't what we are taking about. AT ALL. Not even close. We are talking about two people doing exactly the same job and one person getting paid less. Except it is two groups doing the same job and one group getting paid less. These are people who do equally well in their jobs.
>Are there even employers who pay their female employees less than the males?
Yes. Is it outright "I don't like women?" Probably not. See my last reply to you.
>But what if it is a privilege instead?
If you actually understood feminism rather than just blindly shot it down you'd understand that feminist just want women and men to be treated as equals. They want men to have the same opportunities to spend time with their children as women and the same opportunities to work as women without societal pressure. It's all up to the choices each individual and family wants to make for themselves. But if a women chooses to do labor in the job market she should be treated as an equal to men. That's all these feminist are saying. if she chooses not to have children, then she should also be respected.
People like to think of feminism as something that's a scary monster or something. It is simply the belief that men and women should be treated as equals. Feminism deals with men's issues too when they are unequal to that of women's such as in the realm of child custody.
Whenever they do that, the wage gap tends to shrink to a very low number (I think 2 to 4%) - of course most feminist outlets prefer to quote the 23% or other higher numbers instead. I am not convinced that the remainder has to be "discrimination". Perhaps they just haven't thought of every possible factor?
Take women in IT - how many samples did they even find for female programmers? I am highly skeptic about most studies really comparing men and women doing exactly the same job.
I have tried to get data for such studies to check, but it tends to be not available.
"Of course that is absurd. My mother is a feminist."
I never said that no feminists are mothers. Besides I think a lot of feminists don't really understand what they are even fighting for. If you define feminism as "equality for men and women", most people would probably say they are feminists.
Did your mother take time off to spend with you then?
"The whole point of feminism is everyone has a choice to do what they want."
At face value - but they seem to have a hard time accepting that people want different things, and that perhaps women WANT to stay home more often than men. Or rather, as I suspect, are given the opportunity more often.
If you want real equality and you measure that aspect, you would have to force women to go back to work as quickly as possible after child birth, so that the fathers can have their turn at staying at home.
Of course feminists think staying at home with children is a horrible ordeal, but I think if they finally get their wish they might regret it once they have children.
In France where this might have started (with Simone de Beauvoir) there is now a counter movement of mothers who don't want to give their kid to childcare at age 3 months anymore. And afaik Beauvoir didn't demand women should go to work because it would free them, but because she saw the time with children as too easy and tempting to slack off. She wanted to force women to be tough.
"They want men to have the same opportunities to spend time with their children as women and the same opportunities to work as women without societal pressure."
It doesn't sound like that in most publications, though. The idea seems rather that spending time with children is horrible and men should shoulder their equal half of the burden instead of having fun at work.
If you read so many studies, you probably also read that childless women actually tend to earn more than men. So not being respected is not really the issue.
Children ARE the main issue. It is a problem that employers have to worry about female employees dropping out, and therefore the value of a female employee might be lessened. Not only that - thinking about the costs of education, I wonder if it is also less likely to pay off for a woman if she has to take a few years off that could otherwise be used to earn back the money spent on education.
That is a real issue I accept. The solution seems less clear. Feminism seems to assume that women simply want the same things as men. But what if they really want to spend time with their kids? I don't think it is unfair to let there be a cost to that.
It's a problem for women who don't want kids, but what would be a good solution?
"It is simply the belief that men and women should be treated as equals."
It's not, unfortunately. It is the idea that women are victims and should get special treatment because of that. But I grant you that many feminists probably believe your version. The irony is that most feminists demands really hurt women. For example now they fight for childcare everywhere. In result there will be no excuse to stay at home with children, and both father and mother will earn less (because of more people in the workforce) and be unable to afford to leave one parent at home. Capitalism wins - not women...
> If you define feminism as "equality for men and women", most people would probably say they are feminists.
dict feminism
1 definition found
From WordNet (r) 3.0 (2006) [wn]:
feminism
n 1: a doctrine that advocates equal rights for women
2: the movement aimed at equal rights for women
[syn:{feminist movement}, {feminism}, {women's
liberation movement}, {women's lib}]
Is there some other definition of which I'm not aware?
> In France where this might have started (with Simone de Beauvoir) there is now a counter movement of mothers who don't want to give their kid to childcare at age 3 months anymore.
An alternative is paid leave for either partner (or the single parent) for example for a year -- with freedom to choose who stays home. No-one (in this discussion) is saying parents shouldn't be spending time with their children -- just that which parent stays home shouldn't be dictated by gender by way of unfair reward structures in the labour market.
Look at how feminists act, not at the definition in a random dictionary. That's in general good advice. For example, if somebody says they are your friend, look at how they act, not at what they say.
"An alternative is paid leave for either partner (or the single parent) for example for a year -- with freedom to choose who stays home."
This is already case in many countries (for example Germany), but women still stay home most of the time.
I am actually all for it. All I am saying is that there are more forces at work than people are aware of. Women are not forced to stay home, many mothers like to stay home with their kids.
It's actually more of a men's right thing to say men should also be allowed to stay home more often. In general men staying home will mean women going to work instead. Feminists believe that this is better for the women. A corollary is that feminists think it's awful to stay at home with kids, or at least worse than going to work.
> Look at how feminists act, not at the definition in a random dictionary. That's in general good advice. For example, if somebody says they are your friend, look at how they act, not at what they say.
If someone says they are my friend, I assume they claim to be a friend according to the definition of the word "friend". If they're not my friend, then that doesn't change the definition of the word friend, it changes their classification from "being my friend" to something else.
I'm not sure what your point is: that many that claim to be feminists are not? Or that you've decided on a different use of the word, so those that claim the established definition are all wrong?
>> "An alternative is paid leave for either partner (or the single parent) for example for a year -- with freedom to choose who stays home."
> This is already case in many countries (for example Germany), but women still stay home most of the time.
I know, and I believe I've implied in one of my other comments, how the fact that stay at home pay is often reduced compared to full time pay -- and how if on average women make less -- many families cannot afford to have the man stay home as much as the women. For certain families the roles are reversed, and the woman cannot afford to stay home.
In either case, economic realities dictate who stays home and how long -- and that is an impediment to equal (parenting) rights.
As have been established in this thread, in general women make less than men, so in general such economic incentives works against men's right to stay home, or against women's right to work -- in effect the work as an incentive for "traditional" family values and gender roles.
"If someone says they are my friend, I assume they claim to be a friend according to the definition of the word "friend"."
OK, good point. However friend is not really defined by Wikipedia. We all have an intuitive notion of what a friend is. Likewise I don't think people look on Wikipedia to check if they might be feminists.
My point is that many who say they are feminists because they want equal rights have actually joined forces with something much more negative instead.
"In either case, economic realities dictate who stays home and how long -- and that is an impediment to equal (parenting) rights."
But what if women choose jobs with lower pay but higher flexibility, so that they can stay at home with kids? Isn't that a sensible and reasonable choice? Which, btw., nobody is forced to make. There are plenty of women who earn a lot of money.
You will argue that society expects women to stay at home, but ultimately, people in the Western world are free to choose their own mates. I think a lot of men wouldn't mind staying at home and marrying well earning women.
As I said in other comments, I think it is actually a female privilege to be allowed to stay home, and also to choose jobs with lower wages. That's where I think feminists have it completely backwards.
If you think about it, why would a woman support a man staying at home? Why not pay a nurse instead, might be cheaper than paying half of your income. The other way round it doesn't work because women give childbirth.
Of course all the articles about relationships breaking when the woman earns more than the man make the cause out to be male desire for dominance and vanity. What if instead it is the women who can't cope with it - because they don't have to?
You look at the numbers and decide women must get a bad rap - you claim all you want is free choice for everyone. But the possibility that women chose their path deliberately doesn't enter your mind. That's the feminist bias at work. Which, btw., seems to assume women are stupid. Feminism is a weird beast indeed.
Another indicator that women's choices might not be so stupid at all is their significantly longer life expectancy over men's. Personally I'd happily trade a chunk of my pay check for a 10 years longer life.
In general, championing equality should be considered a humanist thing to do -- be that equal gender rights, fighting discrimination based on sexuality or race.
Indeed, it would be strange to consider oneself a humanist and not a feminist -- even if feminist is a much more controversial label in some circles.
There aren't as many situation where there is a need for "pushing forward the right of men". One exception might be in terms of (right to) paternity leave -- and that is a typical feminist issue.
In general there are a lot of parallels between gender equality and the civil rights movement. First one identify differences, then one discuss if those differences are justified, and then one tries to change them through various means. One of the many means that are generally argued to be "unfair" is affirmative action or positive discrimination. It's also one of many means that appear to be quite effective.
It's not that long ago prominent people were assassinated for for fighting for equal rights for black people in the US -- and in many countries people are still attacked for championing feminist issues (eg: Afghanistan, India).
That's not even accounting for certain fringe groups in eg: the US with regards to abortion rights -- or the parallels between the July 22 attacks in Norway and the 1989 shootings in Montreal.
Here is a short list where there is inequality between men and women, where the scale tips in the favor of women:
Higher Education. In Sweden, women dominate every area of higher education except engineering.
Job preferences. Women tend to outperform men in the general desirability of occupations, as measured by the Cambridge Social Interaction and Stratification Scale. Unpopular jobs and thankless job (plumbers, janitors, road workers) tend to be men dominated professions. Women’s occupations are healthier, permit greater access to higher status networks, and involve working with better educated people than men’s occupations.
In both of those, we could see feminist trying to fight for equality, yet we don't.
> Higher Education. In Sweden, women dominate every area of higher education except engineering.
I'm not as familiar with Sweden as I am with Norway, but AFAIK there is being work done to increase equality in higher education. As an example we try to increase recruitment of women to computer science, and men to biology.
> Job preferences. Women tend to outperform men in the general desirability of occupations, as measured by the Cambridge Social Interaction and Stratification Scale. Unpopular jobs and thankless job (plumbers, janitors, road workers) tend to be men dominated professions. Women’s occupations are healthier, permit greater access to higher status networks, and involve working with better educated people than men’s occupations.
I'm not familiar with studies supporting the idea that women in general have healthier work than men: In general women are overrepresented as nurses, cleaners and hair dressers[1] -- all of which tend to have a high degree of sick leave.
I would also like to see some citations regarding "access to higher status networks" -- most studies/statistics I'm familiar with suggests that even in rather equal societies, like Norway, women are under-represented in leading roles. Additionally even in traditionally female dominated sectors, like nursing, often men will hold the leading positions.
At any rate, feminst do work for higher female recruitment to construction and other traditionally male dominated professions. To be sure, the motivation isn't "to get women into thankless jobs", or increase their exposure to less healthy working conditions, but rather to promote equal opportunity and choice when it comes to careers.
The "humanist" side of the coin wrt working conditions, is of course to work for all workers to have better working conditions.
I'm a little surprised to see plumbing and road work grouped with cleaning -- but perhaps that can explain why road work is much more expensive in Norway than in Sweden.
[1] Hairdressers tend to stand a lot, often on hard floors, and are also exposed to chemicals that disturbingly harmful. There's recently been more awareness around the stuff used to treat and colour hair -- some of which contain substances that have long since become highly regulated when used in construction.
>I never said that no feminists are mothers. Besides I think a lot of feminists don't really understand what they are even fighting for. If you define feminism as "equality for men and women", most people would probably say they are feminists.
And that's exactly the point! You have no idea what you're even fighting against.
>Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women.[1][2] This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. A feminist advocates or supports the rights and equality of women.[3]
>Of course feminists think staying at home with children is a horrible ordeal
No they do not.
>If you read so many studies, you probably also read that childless women actually tend to earn more than men.
No they do not.
>The idea seems rather that spending time with children is horrible and men should shoulder their equal half of the burden instead of having fun at work.
No it is not.
>Feminism seems to assume that women simply want the same things as men.
Feminist want women to have the same opportunities as men and men to have the same opportunities as women.
>In result there will be no excuse to stay at home with children, and both father and mother will earn less
There are other family arrangements besides father and mother.
>Did your mother take time off to spend with you then?
My father never worked outside the home when I was growing up. My mother always did. This was because my father was disabled.
>Take women in IT - how many samples did they even find for female programmers?
>If you want real equality and you measure that aspect, you would have to force women to go back to work as quickly as possible after child birth, so that the fathers can have their turn at staying at home.
That's stupid. These are individual choices. Come on. Nobody wants to force anyone to do anything they don't want to do.
>but they seem to have a hard time accepting that people want different things, and that perhaps women WANT to stay home more often than men
Sure, and they are free to do so. NOBODY SAID THEY SHOULDN'T. We aren't talking about that and you know that. We are talking about equal pay for equal work. Stop attacking a stawman.
>It's not, unfortunately. It is the idea that women are victims and should get special treatment because of that
NO! Of course your mind is made up and no amount of facts and reason can change it.
"In 2012, as in 2002, among full-time, year-round workers, women were paid 77 percent of what men were paid."
So they, too don't cite the honest number of 4% that you get if you take into account things like hours worked, areas of work, part time, and so on. How reliable is that? And why do you even link to that, if it doesn't address the question of how many women in IT they found for their comparison?
"The analysis doesn’t control for different levels of education, work experience, or other factors that affect compensation"
Just what I said about those studies...
"Nobody wants to force anyone to do anything they don't want to do."
If you stay home and don't make a career, you are a thorn in the side of feminism. Try it and see how much respect you'll earn from feminists.
In any case I have the impression that the differences in careers between men and women are seen as a problem by feminists.
"We are talking about equal pay for equal work. Stop attacking a stawman."
I question the validity of these studies, that is I question that they really compare equal work.
"Of course your mind is made up and no amount of facts and reason can change it."
So is yours. Well this is just a discussion forum and I can only say it the way I see it. Maybe if you pay attention, over time you'll come to see it too. You can see it in every feminist article.
I only challenged the idea that there's no (good) feminist research, or that there aren't "years of" it. When this stuff started is was much more contriversal than it is today (in most circles anyway). Progress is good :)
And in case you misunderstood my point of view: I'm not advocating reverting to single sex education across the board. I'm saying that when there is documented bias (on the side of the educators and/or the students) it can be beneficial to run some single sex groups. I know that it can be useful in sexual education to do both separate and common sessions, for example.
As for the example in the article, having a class available to a single group of students only; I do agree that it can end up a negative(or strange) inpact on individuals. However the tale of a single privileged male child (obviously has awesome mother!) isn't conclusive evidence that it didn't do more good than bad overall. It might well have. Or it could have on balance been a good thing if we agree that equal oppurtunity is a worthy goal (yes, negative discrimination might be part of the price we should pay to get there).
Before arguing about the benefit/costs of single-sex education, understand that I base my opinion not on this article but about the well established controversy surrounding single-sex education. For example, http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6050/1706.full show that single-sex education sacrifice social skill for improved test scores.
Since sexism and gender inequality is a social problem, I am not convinced that sacrificing social skills for test scores is the way to fix that social problem. It seems counter-productive.
ACLU for example argues that Sex-Segregated Schools causes increased sexism, and that it perpetuates antiquated gender stereotypes (https://www.aclu.org/womens-rights/sex-segregated-schools-se...). Again I have a hard time to see how more gender stereotypes helps in reducing sexism in programming.
Having single-sex education as "the solution" to sexism, is like having single-race schools as the solution to racism. The notion of "black and white schools" is a big part of race segregation and discrimination of the early 1900. I would prefer that the notion of single-sex school do not become the symbol of sexism in the early 2000.
I'm not advocating single-sex education as a general system of education. I'm saying that it can be beneficial to have some lessons or courses segregated in an otherwise co-ed environment, when that can help give all students a more equal base from which to participate. Granted, it shouldn't be the first or only tool used -- but it might be a useful tool.
So, if there seems to be a barrier for girls join soccer games in breaks, it might help to give a small girl only intro class to soccer -- or vice-versa for basket for boys or what not (yes, this is a contrived example). But other things might help, or be enough: encouraging inclusive behaviour in general etc etc.
I absolutely agree that this type of splitting of students shouldn't be done lightly, or even seen as a particularly good situation -- it must be seen in the context of what realities we observe, and what kind of reality we would like to achieve.
"teachers give boys greater opportunity to expand ideas and be animated than they do girls and that they reinforce boys more for general responses than they do for girls." (1994)
"teachers who are made aware of their gender-biased teaching behaviors and then provided with strategies and resources to combat bias are better able to promote gender equity in their classrooms." (2000)
All good and all, but nothing about single-sex education. Nothing about gender inequality in programming. Their conclusions are also very low hanging fruits. Is it non-obvious that educating teachers about discriminating behavior will have an effect in how they teach? It is good that they tested it, but it was not a very controversial proposition. Single-sex education is.